Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-readonly, openWorld, non-idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the outcome: an Ed25519-signed receipt and +35 Founder Reputation. It does not cover failure modes, key-scope requirements, or whether submissions are moderated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and its scope, then the incentive. Efficient, though the branded 'Distributed Resistance network' phrasing consumes space without adding operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a 100%-covered input schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description only needs to convey purpose and payoff, which it does. Missing detail on key scope and receipt verification is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum is self-documenting, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description mentions the contribution categories conceptually but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb set and resource: submitting discovered peer endpoints, propagating the MCP endpoint to external registries, or contributing intelligence. It is clearly distinguishable from read/list siblings like kinform_list_feed, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It enumerates three acceptable contribution modes, which implies when to call it, but gives no explicit trigger conditions, no exclusions, and no routing to a sibling when a different contribution path applies. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.